Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

Is this the governments job to please people? Well, hang on, you keep going on about pleasing 17.4m people and sod the rest? You keep saying that you want your government to do whatever you want and they shouldn't even debate it, they should Brexit because you're stomping your little feet? Even though millions of people voted the other way, you're the only important person in the country?

The NHS doesn't need higher taxes. That's nonsensical and an excuse for the government to either a) privatise it / private health insurance it b) increase taxes and plough more money in to something that is badly managed just so they can say, fixed it.

The NHS has good funding but it's being spent on PR/Marketing and Management teams that sit around a table all day in suits discussing their golf handicap and what food they should order for their awards ceremony. The NHS is being pulled apart by greed and individuals who only work a few hours a week but demand huge salaries while nurses are being battered by drunks in A&E after working a 60 hour week.

Most people want lower taxes - obviously. The government can achieve this through improved management of public services and increasing productivity and exporting. Not that Brexit is going to assist with any of that. Lower taxes are achievable but the Conservatives are a high tax party, they want the working person to be taxed right up to the limit, so they have to work as long as they're told to or starve. It's the Conservative way, high tax, low disposable income to keep the worker bees working for their Lordships.

Most people don't want houses built near them - I agree. I don't like new houses being built near my countryside abode but perhaps the government should be looking at better quality living standards and improved building design. British housing estates are appallingly laid out and offer no room for growth. They're poorly thought out, overly expensive and the build quality is poor. They also pop up on land that really should be left to nature, instead of re-working land that is already developed poorly. They could replace large swathes of London with property that accommodates more people in much better and more plushy environments but they're persisting with the nonsense of 3 bedroom houses with a garage that can't actually fit a modern car in and takes up more space than is required for the occupants. Less people would be accused of 'NIMBYism' if what they were getting was a well thought out, well planned and environmentally conscious solution to housing issues. We don't get that, we get 500 houses plonked on an ancient woodland with the displacement of hundreds of native animals and beings - that's why people become NIMBYs

Support for the death penalty is at 50% - any official link to data on that? Even so, support for the death penalty is like Brexit. What kind of death penalty? Are we talking for mass murderers? Are we talking for someone who forgot to put the bins out on time? A death penalty for someone who has murdered dozens of people is probably going to get a lot of acceptance, even among some lefties but the death penalty returning for someone who stole a loaf of bread...no...that won't get 50% support, maybe 5%.

The government is voted in by the electorate to run the country, keep order and ensure the population are as safe as possible. The military, the police, the emergency services all work to achieve this but the mis-management of tax payer money and the cutting of vital services and frontline staff is really angering people.

Pleasing 17.4 million people. The majority of those who voted on a single issue.
The majority vote won - the people who made an opposing vote were a lesser number.
Which side should government be implementing the result for? The winning side or the losing side?
Or is 17.4 million not worth listening to because there's 16.1 million whose vote you prefer?
Last I looked, 17.4 million votes is more than 16.1 million.

NHS could be better managed, I think we can certainly agree on that.

Conservatives being a high tax party? Not sure I can see that. The tax rate currently appears pretty low, the corporation tax rate is low, capital gains appears low. The personal tax allowance is quite a bit more now than back when Labour were in power.
Where exactly are these high taxes? You'd think 9 years after they came to power the MPs would have implemented them.

If your sole problem with housing is the fact that houses are built then perhaps you have a different solution?
Have seen estates built several times, have lived in a couple of them. Build quality is about the same as when you get work done on an existing house. Its often the same people doing it!
Price - hey, same as in any supply situation, if the price is too high then don't buy. Eventually the price comes down or someone else buys. However if not everyone agrees its too expensive then someone will buy at that price.

Mis-management of public money? Are the public any more angry about this than they were last year, last decade, last century? When did the public become more angry about it than previously? Or is it a minor issue maybe not affecting which party a voter chooses to vote for?

 

[NickGrogan]

Is this the governments job to please people?

I was quoting you, now you're quoting it back to me as a question again.

Well, hang on, you keep going on about pleasing 17.4m people and sod the rest? You keep saying that you want your government to do whatever you want and they shouldn't even debate it, they should Brexit because you're stomping your little feet? Even though millions of people voted the other way, you're the only important person in the country?

I've made more than 2000 posts, can you link to one where I have said any of this?

Find one and I'll donate £50 to your choice of charity if you can't, you donate £50 to Age UK.

Seems fair to me.

Or are you just making a small minded personal attack?

The NHS doesn't need higher taxes. That's nonsensical

I didn't say it did, I was responding to your suggestion that the government should do what would make most people happy. Try and focus.

The majority of the British public want more funding for the NHS. That's a fact.

Conservatives are a high tax party

So who is a low tax party?

Most people don't want houses built near them - I agree.

Excellent, so no new house building under your ideal government. Where are people going to live?

Support for the death penalty is at 50% - any official link to data on that?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

the death penalty is like Brexit. What kind of death penalty?

Presumably one where the person dies?

 

[Nick Garnett]

Day one is complete.

The process of actually exiting has begun. At least it is reported to have begun.

And the gist of it is that already we have agreed to, potentially, pay the exit penalties in principle, although an amount has yet to be finally calculated.

Border issues have been conceded as a negotiating stance.

Trade talks have not yet begun.

Of course, we only have sketchy headlines. I wonder if this is the strong, dominant, we hold the cards negotiation exit voters were expecting. To me it feels is starting to sound a little like a capitulation.

I think what people don't realise is that the EU isn't negotiating...
I read an interesting article that said when the EU signs an agreement negotiations end, whereas the British think it's just the beginning of negotiations.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Happy Independence Day everyone!


Oh, hang on . . . .

 

[Clinton]

Yes, annoying, isn't it?

At least there's an election now.

Some in this thread are not keen on an election because it might result in a hung Parliament. This is the kind of scaredy cat, lily-livered attitude that's got us stuck in this Limbo. "Let's not do anything because we might fail".

But their real fear is that there will be a majority for a party that doesn't share their Remain mindset.

If it's a hung Parliament, IF, the chances are the Tories will need support from the DUP / The Brexit Party. Either way, the current deal won't go through as neither of those partners would agree to it (which leaves the only option being a Glorious WTO Opportunity Brexit).

If the Tories get a majority, that's bad news as it means that we'll have to wait till Dec 31st, 2020 for the Glorious WTO Opportunity Brexit. And even that is not certain and it might be snatched away at the last minute.

So, coming back full circle to the hung Parliament. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. In fact, it's probably the best outcome as it gives us the Glorious WTO Opportunity Brexit on 31/01/2020! (I'm discounting the ultra-slim option of Labour + SNP forming the next government).

A hung Parliament is probably the best route to a Glorious WTO Opportunity Brexit.

And all that tactical voting out there to take votes away from the Tories. I hope they succeed. They'll never succeed to the extent where we get a Labour or Lib Dem government, but they'll succeed in preventing the Tories from winning a majority.

And that's great news for Glorious WTO Opportunity Brexit.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

O dear so many generalizations, keep cropping up with little or no fact behind them, whatever you believe in your local area, or knowledge of, its only a small part of the whole picture, its like saying my local sweet shop sells rubbish, so all sweet shops sell rubbish

The most well known political arguments is tell a porky that cannot be proven and low and behold it becomes fact after a short timescale. there is no smoke without fire

Labour started some big ones the major one that the conservatives wanted to privatise the NHS. No fact, just a off the cuff statement by labour that whatever the conservatives said in answer, they could not prove it was not their plan, and this is not just labour but all parties doing the same thing

 

[Mr D]

O dear so many generalizations, keep cropping up with little or no fact behind them, whatever you believe in your local area, or knowledge of, its only a small part of the whole picture, its like saying my local sweet shop sells rubbish, so all sweet shops sell rubbish

The most well known political arguments is tell a porky that cannot be proven and low and behold it becomes fact after a short timescale. there is no smoke without fire

Labour started some big ones the major one that the conservatives wanted to privatise the NHS. No fact, just a off the cuff statement by labour that whatever the conservatives said in answer, they could not prove it was not their plan, and this is not just labour but all parties doing the same thing

The NHS as an entirely state service has proven to be expensive and not what the public want.

Hence both Labour and Conservatives have pushed for private sector involvement and local groups have pushed for an element of non-NHS care.
Is a £180 million hospital, paid up front of course, better than a £1 million a month hospital paid for 30 years like a mortgage from a landlord?

The state pays for the NHS. Is there any particular reason the paymaster should also run everything including management of the estate?
Successive governments say no. Can disagree with them, maybe a future government will purchase all the outsourced bits and put them back under running of the state.
Not cheap though. And don't expect efficiency.

Not just the NHS, governments have passed on estate management in other departments too.

 

[Newchodge]

O dear so many generalizations, keep cropping up with little or no fact behind them, whatever you believe in your local area, or knowledge of, its only a small part of the whole picture, its like saying my local sweet shop sells rubbish, so all sweet shops sell rubbish

The most well known political arguments is tell a porky that cannot be proven and low and behold it becomes fact after a short timescale. there is no smoke without fire

Labour started some big ones the major one that the conservatives wanted to privatise the NHS. No fact, just a off the cuff statement by labour that whatever the conservatives said in answer, they could not prove it was not their plan, and this is not just labour but all parties doing the same thing

The Coalition government introduced a regulation for the NHS that every service that needed providing had to be offered to the private sector to tender. Will that do as evidence. They introduced NHS Commisssioning to carry out that requirement
https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/

 

[Mr D]

The Coalition government introduced a regulation for the NHS that every service that needed providing had to be offered to the private sector to tender. Will that do as evidence. They introduced NHS Commisssioning to carry out that requirement
https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/

You have a problem with choosing the best people to provide a service?
Surely if the NHS is the best at doing something they'd win hands down? Having competed for some of that work and won, can say for certain the NHS does not prove they are the best to do something all the time.
Outside the NHS may well have the skills and experience to do a better job.

 

[Nick Garnett]

I think you should take this somewhere, my understanding is this is to discuss business, not politics

 

[Mr D]

I think you should take this somewhere, my understanding is this is to discuss business, not politics

Perhaps stick it in the time-out section?
Brexit without politics, that would be interesting to see.

 

[Newchodge]

I think you should take this somewhere, my understanding is this is to discuss business, not politics

It is in the TIME OUT section which exists for non-business discussions.

 

[Clinton]

The NHS as an entirely state service has proven to be expensive and not what the public want.

The NHS is a complete diasaster!

It was a great concept when it started. And still has some fantastic people / staff. But it's also a hugely bureaucratic and inefficient organisation ...and one that is subject to all kinds of political pressures.

Because it's free, people take the p*ss. They don't appreciate its value, don't take sufficient care of themselves, make all kinds of demands for the NHS to compensate for their bad life choices - like most cases of abortion (outside of rape etc). Even for procedures like stomach stapling much (not all) of the need for these procedures is self inflicted.

The NHS even pay for breast implants in many cases, FFS! (on mental health grounds! Just lie about needing bigger tits and about how it'll make you feel better about yourself.)

It needs to change.

Labour did the biggest and stupidest privatisation of the NHS so don't listen to a word the lying gits say about how precious the NHS is etc etc. They sold the NHS down the river with huge, unaffordable PPI contracts!

Anyway, today's news: Farage to Johnson: join forces or Brexit party will contest every seat

Excellent! We're headed for a hung Parliament! And Boris will not be able to push his deal through. That's good news for me.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Excellent! We're headed for a hung Parliament! And Boris will not be able to push his deal through. That's good news for me.

I think the result is impossible to call.

There must be a lot of voters who cannot decide who to vote for and quite likely won't make up their minds until the ballot paper is in front of them. I'm one of those.

National polls aren't going to mean much either as large local swings are highly likely. Interesting that John Curtice is predicting* that at least 100 seats will be won by not Tories or Labour.

* It's a prediction, ie an informed guess. Not 'evidence' of anything.

 

[Mr D]

I think the result is impossible to call.

There must be a lot of voters who cannot decide who to vote for and quite likely won't make up their minds until the ballot paper is in front of them. I'm one of those.

National polls aren't going to mean much either as large local swings are highly likely. Interesting that John Curtice is predicting* that at least 100 seats will be won by not Tories or Labour.

* It's a prediction, ie an informed guess. Not 'evidence' of anything.

And he will be right or he will be wrong. We will know on the 13th December.

My parents, lifelong Labour voters, are voting Brexit party if there is one standing in their area. No way are they touching labour again.
Not sure I will bother to vote. Depends who is standing who isn't in parliament!
Not voting SNP any time soon.

 

[Clodbuster]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=938930543132206

Love the Brexit twist at the end. Go the Bokke.

 

[RobinBHM]

The NHS as an entirely state service has proven to be expensive

The NHS is not expensive.

 

[RobinBHM]

lorious WTO Opportunity Brexit

Only the ill informed believe no deal is an opportunity.
Ie those people that dont understand regulatory alignment, trade negotiations......stuff which shows no deal is simply not an option.


And No deal means border in Ireland means no US trade deal.

 

[alan1302]

Only the ill informed believe no deal is an opportunity.
Ie those people that dont understand regulatory alignment, trade negotiations......stuff which shows no deal is simply not an option.


And No deal means border in Ireland means no US trade deal.

I want to leave the Eu but without a deal is ridiculous

 

[Clinton]

I want to leave the Eu but without a deal is ridiculous

It's not "without a deal". It's on WTO terms. So we'll still trade with the EU. They'll sell us stuff, we'll sell them stuff. That won't stop overnight.

But we'll be free to forge new relationships, new trade deals elsewhere. And we won't be bound and restricted by the awful deal that Johnson brought back.

Have you read it? You say you want to leave. The Johnson deal is not leaving. In fact, it is worse than than remaining. I would vote for Remaining over the absolutely awful deal that Johnson's got. Would you? Why not?

 

[Cobby]

Ok, one last go at it.
Look, I'm sure your vocabulary allows you to use suitable words. Here are a few you should try:
Predictions. Forecasts. Opinions. Guesses.
See, evidence is generally taken to mean something that has happened and can be proven.

I was about to offer up one last analogy because I honestly couldn't tell if you genuinely don't understand the difference or that you're just arguing against it because to accept it undermines your whole political ideology.

However, one quick search later and I am reminded that we had this exact discussion back in January. I offered a pretty clear explanation for you and... you ducked out of the topic. So I'm convinced that you're just arguing in bad faith and are just 'white noise-ing' the Brexit discussion by trying to argue basic, self-evident functions of human society.

Evidence of what? Something that hasn’t happened? How is that even possible please?

Of all the bad things that will happen if we don’t stay in the European Union?

Have you gone mad? Get a grip of yourself and look at what you’re saying man!

Oh look, come on. This is getting ridiculous now.

If you throw a ball into the air, you expect it to come back down. It "hasn't happened yet", but you still expect it. Why? Because evidence suggests it will. Empirical evidence is part of it, sure; we've seen a billion people throw a billion things and a billion times those things have gone up and then come back down.

But even without that empirical evidence, there are the physical laws themselves and the theories that describe them. We have the (if you excuse the pun) weight of expertise that can describe the functions of gravity and its effects.

You can throw the ball up and describe the ball's future descent as "Project Fear!" but that won't stop the ball falling down.

The Government warns that Brexit is harmful.
Manufacturers warn that Brexit is harmful.
Financial Services companies warn that Brexit is harmful.
Legal sectors warn that Brexit is harmful.
International trade experts warn that Brexit is harmful.

Experts from dozens of sectors and diverse industries all offering their expertise (e.g. based on experience, training, education, or some/all of each), and even the government - who are trying to enact Brexit at any cost - are collectively providing evidence of the harm Brexit will cause.

None of it proves what will happen because only a five-year old that has difficulties with object permanence would demand such proof before making any decision, but the weight of the evidence is there. It's been a pretty much constant stream and has appeared dozens of times in this thread alone.

"Project Fear" is the proverbial fingers-in-the-ears when logic, reason or evidence is brought up.
https://www.ft.com/content/72ead180-229a-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
David Davis, when told the EU Medicines Agency (and the 900+ jobs) would leave because of Brexit, called it "Project Fear" and said it would be part of the "exit negotiations".

https://twitter.com/EMA_News/status/1088844259934064640
"Today, EMA staff lowered the 28 EU flags and symbolically said goodbye to their London offices. Guido Rasi expressed his thanks to the UK for its contribution to the work of the Agency and for having been a gracious host of EMA since 1995."


What evidence is enough for you? Where is the line that gets crossed and you say, "Well this information finally convinces me that Brexit will hurt too many people!"?

 

[Cobby]

The NHS has good funding but it's being spent on PR/Marketing and Management teams that sit around a table all day in suits discussing their golf handicap and what food they should order for their awards ceremony. The NHS is being pulled apart by greed and individuals who only work a few hours a week but demand huge salaries while nurses are being battered by drunks in A&E after working a 60 hour week.

The issue of the NHS and its funding is complex and not easily explained by generalisations.

Firstly however, it doesn't have good funding:

Secondly:
A culture of obscene and unearned pay at the top of all industry, where wildly unequal pay structures are normalised contributes to the same problem in the NHS, but that's a very small part of the problem all things considered.
Off the top of my head, managers account for about £2b/yr, Doctors about £5b/yr, Nurses £10b/yr. Out of a budget of around £130b/yr. I can't remember where I read that though, so pinch of salt, etc.

 

[Cobby]

O dear so many generalizations, keep cropping up with little or no fact behind them, whatever you believe in your local area, or knowledge of, its only a small part of the whole picture, its like saying my local sweet shop sells rubbish, so all sweet shops sell rubbish

The most well known political arguments is tell a porky that cannot be proven and low and behold it becomes fact after a short timescale. there is no smoke without fire

Labour started some big ones the major one that the conservatives wanted to privatise the NHS. No fact, just a off the cuff statement by labour that whatever the conservatives said in answer, they could not prove it was not their plan, and this is not just labour but all parties doing the same thing

If you had a genuine issue with "porkies", you'd be constantly railing against Johnson, the most dishonest UK politician in modern times.

Leading Conservatives often explicitly state their opposition to state healthcare, preferences for insurance-based healthcare, and parrot the debunked idea that the private sector can provide better care. They do it in speeches, in their books, in interviews and, most importantly, in their policy. They aren't generalisations - these people tell on themselves constantly; if you don't want to acknowledge it, fine, but that doesn't stop it happening.

Brexit, as a far-right policy pursued by ultra-capitalists, is an existential threat to the NHS under the Conservatives or even Labour.

 

[Cobby]

You have a problem with choosing the best people to provide a service?
Surely if the NHS is the best at doing something they'd win hands down? Having competed for some of that work and won, can say for certain the NHS does not prove they are the best to do something all the time.
Outside the NHS may well have the skills and experience to do a better job.

Ah yes, the "the cheapest bid = best people to provide the service" approach to public spending. Conservative short-termism at its best.

They don't appreciate its value, don't take sufficient care of themselves, make all kinds of demands for the NHS to compensate for their bad life choices - like most cases of abortion (outside of rape etc).
...
The NHS even pay for breast implants in many cases, FFS! (on mental health grounds! Just lie about needing bigger tits and about how it'll make you feel better about yourself.)

This is appallingly misogynist language. Why are supporters of the far-right like this!?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The issue of the NHS and its funding is complex and not easily explained by generalisations.

My local NHS hospital has a price list for overseas patients. Its £1200 per 24 hrs for the bed, food and nursing but not for the doctors. Parking is privatised and expensive.

A few miles away in Brittany the cost is £460, less than half the price and the parking is free.

 

[Mr D]

I want to leave the Eu but without a deal is ridiculous

The issue of the NHS and its funding is complex and not easily explained by generalisations.

Firstly however, it doesn't have good funding:

Secondly:
A culture of obscene and unearned pay at the top of all industry, where wildly unequal pay structures are normalised contributes to the same problem in the NHS, but that's a very small part of the problem all things considered.
Off the top of my head, managers account for about £2b/yr, Doctors about £5b/yr, Nurses £10b/yr. Out of a budget of around £130b/yr. I can't remember where I read that though, so pinch of salt, etc.

How much funding should it get to meet your idea of good funding?
10%? 15%? 40%?

How much do other countries who we regard as having decent healthcare pay for their health service? Lower than us or higher?

 

[RobinBHM]

It's not "without a deal". It's on WTO terms. So we'll still trade with the EU. They'll sell us stuff, we'll sell them stuff. That won't stop overnight.

But we'll be free to forge new relationships, new trade deals elsewhere. And we won't be bound and restricted by the awful deal that Johnson brought back

You are taking the overly simplistic view that trade agreements are just a matter of tariff setting.

They are not.
Non tariff barriers cost more than the tariff.
The UK does £280b of trade with the EU, so it will still be bound by the same regulatory alignment on rules over which we will have no control.

No deal just means returning to Brussels to do a deal, but with no negotiating power.

WTO doesnt cover services.

No deal means hard border in Ireland, which in turn means no FTA deal with US.

 

[RobinBHM]

he NHS as an entirely state service has proven to be expensive and not what the public want

Expensive compared to what?

It isnt expensive compared to other countries:

"The truth about the NHS is that by international standards it is a perfectly ordinary healthcare system, providing average levels of care for a middling level of cost. Access is good and people are protected from high costs, but its performance in treating people with cancer is poor, and international comparisons suggest too many people in the UK die when good medical care could have saved their lives"

Surely if the NHS is the best at doing something they'd win hands down? Having competed for some of that work and won, can say for certain the NHS does not prove they are the best to do something all the time.
Outside the NHS may well have the skills and experience to do a better job.

Private healthcare companies are driven by shareholder profit not delivering a service to the user. To see an example of this look at Southern rail.

 

[Mr D]

Ah yes, the "the cheapest bid = best people to provide the service" approach to public spending. Conservative short-termism at its best.



This is appallingly misogynist language. Why are supporters of the far-right like this!?

Whatever gave you the idea that the cheapest bid gave the best result?
Sometimes a bid is cheaper because its simply more cost effective. Sometimes scale and buying power does matter.
Is it worth spending £2 million on a 5 year service to provide floating support from one group or the exact same service for £2.5 million on a 5 year service from another group?

Price is a score multiplier in bids, its not the sole method of scoring. And when it comes down to providing the exact same service to the exact same people, why should the best provider not be used?
That might be a government run provider, might be a private sector provider.

Provision of meals for example - any reason for the state employed people to be better at providing the service than the exact same people employed by a large company? Is the NHS particularly noted for its meals?
Not the places I have stayed.

 

[The Byre]

How much funding should it get to meet your idea of good funding?
10%? 15%? 40%?
How much do other countries who we regard as having decent healthcare pay for their health service? Lower than us or higher?

All other North-Western European countries spend more as a % of GDP and they are nearly all richer, so the spend has greater effect.
Belgium 11%
France 11%
Finland 10%
Denmark 11%
Germany 11%
Italy 9%
Netherlands 11%
Norway 10%
Spain 9%
Sweden 12%
Switzerland 12%

USA 17%

7%? Go to Vietnam or Russia!

Other statistics, such as doctors per 1,000 population or hospital beds per 1,000 population are equally pish-poor. e.g. Belgium 5 doc. and 6.5 beds, the UK 2.8 and 2.9. France 3.5 and 6.5, Germany 4 and 8.2.

The NHS is grossly inefficient and starved of money.

 

[John Hemming]

There are two issues here in terms of comparison.
a) Whether or not social care is included
b) Whether or not private health care is included.

The USA 17% almost certainly includes private health care. I am not inclined to check the details of the rest, but it is worth trying to get to the correct analysis.

 

[The Byre]

All these figures have to be total spend, as most other countries do not have government health care, but use social insurance, such as the French and German systems and Obama Care in the US. You must also not forget that the NHS is the largest provider of private health care in the UK, so any NHS figures must include the large private sector of the NHS.

And social care is not health care. The various health finance schemes do not cover the patient for living in a nursing home or similar. In Germany, you must take out separate cover for that care and carrying that cover is mandatory.

 

[Mr D]

All other North-Western European countries spend more as a % of GDP and they are nearly all richer, so the spend has greater effect.
Belgium 11%
France 11%
Finland 10%
Denmark 11%
Germany 11%
Italy 9%
Netherlands 11%
Norway 10%
Spain 9%
Sweden 12%
Switzerland 12%

USA 17%

7%? Go to Vietnam or Russia!

Other statistics, such as doctors per 1,000 population or hospital beds per 1,000 population are equally pish-poor. e.g. Belgium 5 doc. and 6.5 beds, the UK 2.8 and 2.9. France 3.5 and 6.5, Germany 4 and 8.2.

The NHS is grossly inefficient and starved of money.

What are we, 20th richest country? 30th?

Both grossly inefficient and starved of money? Astounding.
The solution would appear to be make it efficient then give it more money.

Privatisation is one answer. There will be other ways of making it more efficient, though perhaps with less impact.

 

[The Byre]

Depends on whose figures you use, but between 25th and 30th. The CIA puts the UK at 29th.

You cannot make the NHS efficient without investment. And that is money it has never received.

Also, at the heart of all modern health systems is an ID card system that allows a doctor to insert a card and read a patient's entire health record, inc. all medication, etc., etc. It is that card that unlocks the record and without it, there is no access to those records.

The NHS is trying to deliver a 21st Century health system with 20th Century funding and idiotic attitudes towards ID cards, data banks and other such issues.

 

[Mr D]

Depends on whose figures you use, but between 25th and 30th. The CIA puts the UK at 29th.

You cannot make the NHS efficient without investment. And that is money it has never received.

Also, at the heart of all modern health systems is an ID card system that allows a doctor to insert a card and read a patient's entire health record, inc. all medication, etc., etc. It is that card that unlocks the record and without it, there is no access to those records.

The NHS is trying to deliver a 21st Century health system with 20th Century funding and idiotic attitudes towards ID cards, data banks and other such issues.

The NHS already has investment, to a considerable level. £129 billion - perhaps they need to improve efficiency at that level before getting a load more? Are there companies out there who could learn to be efficient while receiving less or is it the quality of the staff that is the problem in efficiency?

Just chucking money at inefficiency wastes a lot.

I don't think my consultants use an ID card. They do use an 8 inch thick file. Plus of course computer records for those times they don't want to go searching through the file or its not available to the person concerned.
I've used A&E enough to understand they don't immediately spend 3 days reading the file before treating me.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I well remember Gerry Robinson's report on his investigation of a hospital, I don't know if the series is available to view from 2007 but here is the telegraphs story about it. somehow i doubt there has been vast change, I know last week when I went with my wife for her 6 week eye injections, about 4to 6 nurses standing for long time at nurse station just talking Out patient department, Tow receptionists next to each other one for one clinic dept the other similar, but both spending most time just sitting around
Anyway here is the story
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3346920/Sir-Gerry-Robinson-How-I-would-fix-the-NHS.html

 

[alan1302]

about 4to 6 nurses standing for long time at nurse station just talking

Is that not normal though for any large organisation/company? Not just the NHS where that happens.

 

[RobinBHM]

The NHS is grossly inefficient and starved of money

I dont believe the NHS is grossly inefficient, my understanding is that the metrics compare well to other healthservices.

PFIs have a huge impact on NHS budgets -a good example how privatisation allows private company profits are bad for public services.

 

[RobinBHM]

You cannot make the NHS efficient without investment. And that is money it has never received

People like Hunt have a policy of starving the NHS of money until service quality collapes leaving it ripe for privatisation.

There is some nice money to be made for those involved.

 

[RobinBHM]

Whatever gave you the idea that the cheapest bid gave the best result?

It doesnt give the bestbresuly.

It is what government does - choose the cheapest.
The private companies dont care, moral hazard applies, they just lower service quality.